|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-25-07 | | CambridgeSprings1904: The story described by <chancho> above has been described as a myth by some commentators, and it may well be. However, the tournament bulletin, which was published the day the game was played, says this, "Ever since the St. Petersburg tournament in 1896, Pillsbury had carefully treasured a variation in the Queen's gambit declined which he some day hoped to try on one man in an important game. The player he had selected was none other than Dr. Lasker and in the sixth round the grand opportunity presented itself and the surprise was sprung." http://home.wi.rr.com/etzel/cs1904.... |
|
| Dec-25-07 | | RookFile: Pillsbury was definitely one of the most interesting players ever, either as a person, or his games. |
|
| Dec-25-07 | | Calli: "Pillsbury had countless opportunities to give his new line the practical test" As I recall, Napier analyzed it with Pillsbury. Cambridge Springs 1904 according to Napier was Pillsbury first opportunity to play it. Napier related that Pillsbury complained to him during the game that "He's playing the only damn scheme that you never tried" or words to that effect. |
|
| Mar-01-08 | | sombreronegro: 25 Bc4 . A tactical feast. The e6 pawn is pinned and the bishop is immune on c4 because of Ne5+ forking the queen and king. The g4 Knight is safe on its square because of the rook pinning the f5 pawn. |
|
| Mar-01-08 | | Shams: looks to me like white's extra pawn would be tough to convert if black allows the queen trade, e.g. 7...♘xd4 8.♗xd8 ♘xf3+ 9.exf3 ♔xd8 10.cxd5 ♗b4 11.dxe6 ♗xe6. 
click for larger viewBlack has nice bishops and can either isolate the c-pawn or add pressure with ...Rc8 and ...Ke7. |
|
| Jan-16-09 | | blacksburg: Fischer vs Najdorf, 1962 anyone else see an strange similarity between these 2 games? |
|
| Apr-18-09 | | M.D. Wilson: Lasker got hammered here. |
|
Oct-02-09
 | | keypusher: <Hannak>
<"Pillsbury had countless opportunities to give his new line the practical test"> Typical Hannak. According to the database, Pillsbury got precisely zero opportunities between the 1896 and 1904 Lasker games. The closest he got was Pillsbury vs Mieses, 1902, but Mieses played 5....Be7 instead of 5....cxd4. I think <ughaibu> pointed this out already, but Pillsbury had white against Lasker once more at St. Petersburg and also at Nuremburg 1896 and London 1899. He played 1. e4 each time. |
|
| Nov-25-09 | | WhiteRook48: the Primitive variation? |
|
| Nov-25-09 | | TheFocus: Some myths never die, do they? It is a commonly accepted myth that Pillsbury discovered Bxf6 and waited eight years to spring it on Lasker. The truth is that Pollock discovered the move and printed it in British Chess Magazine in 1896 during the tournament. His and Mason's notes later made up the book St. Petersburg 1895-96, printed in 1896. The surprise is that no one else ever tried it until this game, unless no one else ever had the opportunity. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | CambridgeSprings1904: Informative post by <TheFocus>. However, I remain unconvinced that the story, in its entirety, is a myth (although the reality is that we'll never know). Pillsbury may very well have gotten the 7.Bxf6 idea from the analysis published in BCM, but the point of the story is not about the discovery, it is about Pillsbury's preparation of the variation for future use. The contemporaneous account and apparent confirmation of the story by Napier (see earlier posts) would seem to carry some weight. I would be interested in posts of additional relevant facts. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | TheFocus: <CambridgeSprings1904> I would agree. Because of Lasker's convincing win, maybe other players did not seek to venture it in play. Pillsbury must have seen some value in 7.Bxf6, and studied it and prepared it. Certainly Napier bears this out. It is great that Pillsbury was able to finally use it in his last tournament game against Lasker. Sweet revenge. What we are rewarded with are two fine brilliancy wins to enjoy. |
|
Jul-20-10
 | | jessicafischerqueen: Thanks for all those valuable posts on the notorious <7.Bxf6> lore you guys. Very good scholarship, all combined. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | jessicafischerqueen: Here is what Pope's biography of <Pillsbury> has to say about the stories surrounding the notorious "saved innovation" in this game: <(Pillsbury) was also able to score one final brilliant victory over the World Champion, Emanuel Lasker.The <<<legend>>> about the last mentioned game, started by Georg Marco, is that Pillsbury had discovered an improvement in the game that Lasker had won brilliantly during the St. Petersburg tournament, and had waited patiently for eight years to seek revenge with this novelty. Credibility is given to this story by (the recollections of William Napier (as reported by Soltis and Smith): "We played the position whenever we met, which was often. Years we played it, here and abroad. It became a bore." Opinions vary as to the validity of this story. The general argument is that if Pillsbury had possessed the analysis, prior to Cambridge Springs, he would no doubt have used it in one of the several important tournaments in which he and Lasker competed. The problem with this argument is that from 1896 until 1903 Pillsbury was expecting to play Lasker for the world championship title. If Pillsbury was to wrest the title from Lasker's grip he would have needed this novelty, and other improvements he had discovered, to achieve victory over Lasker. Indeed, Pillsbury had many opportunities to use his discoveries, but winning a single tournament was not his goal. Pillsbury's health after 1903 had become seriously questionable and the 'Hero of Hastings' possibly knew that this tournament would be his last chance to defeat Lasker.> |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | chancho: A Pillsbury vs Lasker match would have been an epic.
Sadly, for Chess, another great match that was never meant to be. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | ughaibu: Let's assume that such a match would've happened around 1900, is there any reason to think that Lasker wouldn't have won, fairly easily? |
|
Aug-02-10
| | jessicafischerqueen: <ughaibu> I think you are surely correct- by 1900 <Pillsbury> was already plagued by frequent, and serious, flare ups of his illness. I think the only time he would have had any chance against <Lasker> was straight after Hastings 1895. But it's all academic since <Pillsbury> did in fact have a serious illness that may have started to show itself already by St. Petersburg 1896, according to some, at least. Also, <Lasker> took so much time off for his other career(s). And who could blame him? There was ZERO money for top chess players at the turn of the century- at least compared to the financial conditions for today's elite players. And, tragically, <Lasker> ended up dying in penury anyway. I think we'd all have liked to see a Match against <Tarrasch> too, as many have already said. |
|
Aug-20-10
 | | LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-... My annotations of this game ... |
|
Aug-22-10
| | LIFE Master AJ: BTW
I wrote the CG staff yesterday.
Move 18 (for Black) ... ... ...
IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was 18...Qb5, not 18...Qb4?; 19.NxP/e5.
Sadly, this mistake has persisted for a number of years here. Should the CG staff require it, I can mail them a copy of my photo-copy of the original bulletins and the book of this event. E. Winter, John Hillary, User: CambridgeSprings1904 and YHC, (and many others!); have all documented this fact. |
|
Aug-22-10
| | LIFE Master AJ: See my web page - updated link given just above - for more details. |
|
Aug-22-10
| | chancho: You're right AJ. Jacques Hannak's book on Lasker has 18...QKt4 as the move played. |
|
Aug-22-10
| | LIFE Master AJ: Yup. User User: CambridgeSprings1904 noticed this ... way back in 2004! (See the first page or so of the kibitzes.) <<<Jan-11-04> <CambridgeSprings1904:>> <Black's move 18 <<is incorrect> on this site,> as it is in most game collections.> Black actually played 18...Qb5 <(not 18...Qb4).>> |
|
Aug-22-10
| | LIFE Master AJ: YHC = "Your humble commentator." (me) |
|
Mar-11-13
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Kenkaku: Another famous game. Pillsbury supposedly studied his loss to Lasker in St. Petersburg (Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896) extensively, and with the help of his good friend <William Napier (who is also in this database)> came up with this new line. *** > [foregoing excerpted from post of Aug-02-03; first comment in this thread; Pillsbury's principal new idea (used for the first time in this game) was: <7. Bxf6!>.] Not only is Napier “in this database”, at this tournament (Cambridge Springs 1904) he played a very famous game against World Champion Lasker: Lasker vs W Napier, 1904. |
|
| May-12-13 | | devere: The candle burns brightest just before it goes out. This was Pillsbury's last tournament, and while declining health meant he couldn't play well every day, he was still able to win this very brilliant game against the reigning world champion. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Rxf5+